dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
reply to Tobester

Re: That's what voting GOP gets you

I think the courts should allow the community to waste their money as they please. If the current market hasn't seen a fiber startup until now, I'm sure it will either fail horribly (burdening the entire foolish community for generations), or they will change the playing field for such businesses retroactively. Either way, let the buyer beware (and watch the productive and sensible flee).

Tobester

join:2000-11-14
San Francisco, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
said by KCrimson:

I think the courts should allow the community to waste their money as they please. If the current market hasn't seen a fiber startup until now, I'm sure it will either fail horribly............

We are in complete agreement.

For small rural areas without adequate internet services, who would like to install availability or capacity, it should be up to the community, not Corporate lobbyists.

We both know that Internet providers are "cherry-picking" the easiest installations.

By banding together smaller communities who might not ever see internet connections can advance, with the risks involved too.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to KCrimson
said by KCrimson:

I think the courts should allow the community to waste their money as they please. If the current market hasn't seen a fiber startup until now, I'm sure it will either fail horribly (burdening the entire foolish community for generations), or they will change the playing field for such businesses retroactively. Either way, let the buyer beware (and watch the productive and sensible flee).

The locals in the community ARE free to waste their money, they just aren't allowed to waste the taxpayer's money.


KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
reply to Tobester
said by Tobester:

said by KCrimson:

I think the courts should allow the community to waste their money as they please. If the current market hasn't seen a fiber startup until now, I'm sure it will either fail horribly............

We are in complete agreement.

For small rural areas without adequate internet services, who would like to install availability or capacity, it should be up to the community, not Corporate lobbyists.

We both know that Internet providers are "cherry-picking" the easiest installations.

By banding together smaller communities who might not ever see internet connections can advance, with the risks involved too.

What you fail to see is that if there were a profit to be made, private corporations would have been competing to provide this service that the community seems to want so badly. Even if profits would take years, we've seen build-outs where initial capital expenditures are projected into many years (see Vz FiOS). Call it "cherry picking", or whatever, the fact remains that smaller communities that band together like this are stepping into an arena that the government was never intended in a market economy, and such experiments rarely if ever see their intended results without extreme cost or redistribution of resources or population.


KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
reply to elray
said by elray:

said by KCrimson:

I think the courts should allow the community to waste their money as they please. If the current market hasn't seen a fiber startup until now, I'm sure it will either fail horribly (burdening the entire foolish community for generations), or they will change the playing field for such businesses retroactively. Either way, let the buyer beware (and watch the productive and sensible flee).

The locals in the community ARE free to waste their money, they just aren't allowed to waste the taxpayer's money.

A referendum concerning such a capital expenditure by the locals would solve that differentiation. If (as I'm suspecting will occur) the locals approve such a project, there's little the opposition can do. It becomes a public works project like a toll road, a bridge or a dam. It wasn't long ago that there were private toll roads. I'm NOT endorsing this, but I'm not sure there's much that can stop an "inspired" populace from wasting the taxpayer's money.

IMO, the mistake the opposition has made to date is having the existing broadband provider taking on the legal challenge. It should have been coordinated with a local grassroots opposition group instead (similar to the NHL Coyotes bond issue opposition, where the league is foisting a bond issue on the public, and concerned opponents are preventing the issuance by devaluing the bonds).
Expand your moderator at work

Tobester

join:2000-11-14
San Francisco, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

Re: That's what voting GOP gets you

said by KCrimson :

What you fail to see is that if there were a profit to be made, private corporations would have been competing to provide this service that the community seems to want so badly..................

Call it "cherry picking", or whatever, the fact remains that smaller communities that band together like this are stepping into an arena that the government was never intended in a market economy............

Sure they are.

Smaller communities have been doing this exact thing for years, such rural electric cooperatives, water districts and they like.

I understand your feeling government should not be involved in a market economy. However, how long would you have smaller communities wait in order to receive upgraded internet services?

The current "mega-internet" companies might not ever see enough return on investment to want to upgrade rural areas, hence my "cherry picking" comment.

The proposed North Carolina bill will specifically exclude these under-served communities from taking matters into their own hands to increase community internet options.

By a majority community vote, the electorate should be free to make their own decisions, agreeing to tax themselves for the greater good of the local community.


KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
You're describing cooperatives, so I'm sure that membership will be voluntary, and not amount to a general tax. This shouldn't be a problem in towns that have REAL problems, and not just a few enthusiasts that want to share the public's wealth for their own surfing.

Tobester

join:2000-11-14
San Francisco, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
said by KCrimson:

You're describing cooperatives, so I'm sure that membership will be voluntary, and not amount to a general tax. This shouldn't be a problem in towns that have REAL problems, and not just a few enthusiasts that want to share the public's wealth for their own surfing.

Co-operative is your word

Think of Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Palo Alto Municipal Electric Co, City of Mesa, AZ Utilities, Navopache Electric (AZ). All are municipally owned and operated for the benefit of the community and offer cheaper electric rates than surrounding utility. (I'm sure there are other examples of telephone, and water districts I can't recall at the moment too )

I think your main problem is you don't want to pay for anything you do not personally think you benefit from regardless of whether the public has voted for it, or not.

Here in San Francisco, we have twice voted NOT to start the process of forming our own Electric Utility, and it was pushed hard by our elected City Officials.


KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
said by Tobester:

Co-operative is your word

Actually, it was you that brought up rural cooperatives, I just pointed to the principles of the idea.